One Person Successfully Removed From US No-Fly List

An anonymous reader writes "In February, Judge William Alsup ruled in favor of Rahinah Ibrahim, who sued the U.S. government in 2006 after she was mistakenly added to the no-fly list and subsequently denied entry to the country. Now, the Department of Justice has finally decided it won't appeal the ruling, making Ibrahim the first person to challenge the list at trial and get herself removed. 'But Ibrahim's case, as just one of hundreds of thousands of individuals who have been placed on such lists, shows the system's opacity. First, the only surefire way to even determine if one is on such a list in the U.S. is to attempt to board a flight and be denied. Even after that happens, when a denied person inquires about his or her status, the likely response will be that the government "can neither confirm nor deny" the placement on such lists. The government's surrender in Ibrahim comes on the heels of a new report by the American Civil Liberties Union that shows just how insanely difficult it is to contest one's status on the government blacklists (PDF).'"

Comments

Fun fact

[pegr]

Judge William Alsup also ruled on the Oracle/Google case. The more you know! ;)

Re:Fun fact

[Daniel Hoffmann]

The guy is the patron saint of common sense. One would think that common sense would not need a patron saint, being, you know, common...

Re:Fun fact

[kylemonger]

Too bad getting to common sense took eight years.

Re:Fun fact

[davester666]

For the next person, the gov't is determined to make sure it won't take less than 10 years.

Re:Fun fact

[FuzzNugget]

It's certainly sense, but even more certainly *not* common, unfortunately.

Re:Fun fact

[Methadras]

He should have further ruled to make this list public and let DoJ fight it out in the courts.

Re:Fun fact

[geekmux]

The guy is the patron saint of common sense. One would think that common sense would not need a patron saint, being, you know, common...

Uh, in case you hadn't noticed, we should look to change the name, because common sense...isn't so common anymore.

In fact, it's become an absolute bitch to find.

Apparently the only mentality that is common anymore is a corrupt one.

Re:Fun fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense isn't named so because of popularity. This is actually an ancient philosophical term meaning the use of the senses in communion with each other and with reason to extrapolate that which cannot be sensed. This should be standard operating processor for humans...alas...

Re:Fun fact

[noh8rz10]

Speaking of name changing, what if you're on the no-fly list and then you go change your name? Does the no-fly list get updated with your new name? I can't imagine so.

Re:Fun fact

[alva_edison]

Speaking of name changing, what if you're on the no-fly list and then you go change your name? Does the no-fly list get updated with your new name? I can't imagine so.

Change your name with whom? If you change your name with a government that has your name on a no-fly list, then I would think they would keep it up-to-date.

Re:Fun fact

[noh8rz10]

you're assuming a lot of competence on the part of the govt.. but what if you got married in another country, and took on a different last name?

Re:Fun fact

[bill_mcgonigle]

If the next Justice had to come from sitting judges, he'd be on my short list.

Re:Fun fact

[DeVilla]

Common sense is on a watch list. It has a hard time getting around government areas much less getting past government surveillance and getting in the front door of a court house.

Re:Fun fact

[Lennie]

This was a non-US citizen trying to get into the country.

She had a student visa, put on the no-fly list and when she left the country for a few days, it was revoked.

I think changing her name and sending the education institute a copy of the new passport and asking for a new student visa might actually have worked.

If it works, it would probably be a hell of a lot faster than 9 year.

Re:Fun fact

[sjames]

One might also think they'd figure out that the people on the no fly list are not children, but apparently not. One might even think they'd get that there are often more than one person with the same name, but that escaped them as well.

Re:Fun fact

[hoboroadie]

common sense=rare sense
Ironic?

Re: Fun fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be under any illusions that private business has any common sense either. In many ways profit-focused operators are much worse, being both opaque and unaccountable.

Re:Fun fact

[Jeremy Erwin]

I'm kind of attached to my name, for personal reasons. Perhaps I'll change it for matrimonial reasons, but likewise, I'm reluctant to wed unless it's for love.I shouldn't be forced into either choice for bureaucratic reasons.

Re:Fun fact

[Lennie]

Being involves in courtcases for 9 years doesn't sounds great either.

This is probably the reason why this is the only version that made it so far.

She had 3 choices:
- give up, don't go to the educational institute she was studying at before
- courtcases
- do something to side-step the list, like changing her name

She went with the second option which means she didn't like the first option. And a honest person would try the second before thinking about the third.

What would you do ?

Re:Fun fact

[spectrumlogic]

Too bad we have "secret documents or lists" upon which the gov't acts...just to get a little closer to the problem.

Re:Fun fact

[Anonymous Coward]

"Common" sense is an alias for "the prevailing ideas in a culture". And unfortunately, those prevailing ideas seem to have taken a turn for the hysterical.

Your common sense is a common sense shared by slashdotters, I think, but not the culture at large.

The lies that we tell ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

The shinning city on the hill, the land of the free.

Re:The lies that we tell ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to do this, and more, so much more, to keep us safe from the terrists who hate us for our freedom.

Re:The lies that we tell ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

And also because our tanks are in their backyard.

Their literal backyard.

Re: The lies that we tell ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll obviously we don't gave enough tanks if they still try that shit. Or is it too many ? Let's try both.

Re:The lies that we tell ourselves

[jc42]

We have to do this, and more, so much more, to keep us safe from the terrists who hate us for our freedom.

And also because our tanks are in their backyard.

Nah; we don't much bother with the tanks these days. Instead, we keep our drones overhead. They're a lot cheaper, and their operators are far from the scene. And if the terrists should shoot one down, we have lots more to send to their wedding parties.

Re:The lies that we tell ourselves

[The Grim Reefer]

And also because our tanks are in their backyard.

Their literal backyard.

I suppose it's better than parking them on their house.

Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[romanval]

I'm not too sure how a no-fly list works since many people can have the same name.
If that's the case, what's stopping someone from legally changing their name to something more american/western-european and re-issuing their passport?

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

No-fly lists simply shouldn't exist, regardless of whether or not they can work. The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd. As others have said, this is just used for oppression.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

It's so much worse than that. It means that you are required by law to notify the government at least three days in advance before you plan to travel (by air) from state to state.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

But if they won't confirm, nor deny, that you are on such a list, how are you to know if informing the gov't is required?

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[metalmaster]

If there's any hope for the human race, this "list" is a bit more extensive than just a name

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

No fly lists where you can not get off but only can add names is even worse. At some point the list just gets long and worthless. If everybody is on the list then no terrorist can do harm with a airplane...

By the way: I have a friend who's son is on the no-fly list since he's 3 years old! He's twin brother is not. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. No way to get him off. There is just nobody responsible you could apply to.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[gnasher719]

No-fly lists simply shouldn't exist, regardless of whether or not they can work. The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd. As others have said, this is just used for oppression.

Now what you say doesn't make sense. You can't get arrested for being dangerous. You can only get arrested for committing or possibly planning to commit a crime (and "planning" means actively doing things to help committing the crime, not "intending". )

That's of course independent of the fact that it is ridiculous to say there's a million people too dangerous to fly; and even if it was true there would be no excuse for making it hard for people not belonging on that list to come off it.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[spire3661]

"No papers? State to state?"

"No papers."

"Then i will live in Montana...."

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting to look at this in the perspective. The one that shows the reasons and arguments used by founding fathers of the republic to make something different than opaque, corrupt and inefficient regimes of old continent to create something different: where transparency, the rule of the law etc are basic principles. Now look at what happened: this funny secrete courts of which decisions you may not talk, the no-fly lists which you cannot question because you will never know you are on one. Add to this: enhanced interrogation techniques, extrajudicial killings, the whole nonsense of war on drugs, the violence and inefficiency of US judicial and penal systems as well as lies used to send troops all over the planet (Collin Power etc). I wonder if that was unavoidable (I think it was). Every being and republic too gets old and starts seeing ghosts generated by the old brain, accumulated fat causes the body to stop functioning properly, Just wondering. Right now even Germany is more transparent and has more efficient state than US does. I guess the only branches of US gov. that still work kind of well are military and 'security' industry. I wonder how does that feel to become what one tried to escape from?

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

You're missing the point. EVERYONE is required to notify the government in advance before they fly.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anubis IV]

The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd.

I generally agree, but it's relatively trivial to imagine cases where they can't arrest someone, despite having every intention of doing so should the opportunity present itself. If local authorities are uncooperative, should the American government allow a criminal who they believe may be a danger to the flight board the plane and hope that the person just sits there nicely until they can be arrested when they land?

I don't have an easy answer for that, and I don't know whether that sort of a situation would even be sufficient to justify a (much smaller) no-fly list. But at the very least, it's something to consider. And it's also a slippery slope of which we need to be extremely wary, because if you start to loosen the definition of "criminal" a bit (e.g. people we think are bad, people our allies want to arrest, people who associate with bad people), it can easily end up where we are now, which is in no way acceptable.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

Now what you say doesn't make sense. You can't get arrested for being dangerous.

Don't be pedantic. You can be dangerous and be committing crimes at the same time.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

I generally agree, but it's relatively trivial to imagine cases where they can't arrest someone, despite having every intention of doing so should the opportunity present itself.

Then too bad. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest someone for committing crimes, they don't get to punish someone without trial. Freedom has risks, and ones I'm more than willing to take.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[CohibaVancouver]

Actually, I think you will need *two* wives.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[bluefoxlucid]

/nick David Smith

/nick Bill Gates

/nick Elon Musk

You can legally change your name to the name of someone who not only flies a lot, but will be pissed off a lot if they can't fly.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[suutar]

You can't get arrested for being dangerous.

but apparently you can be punished for it, without charges or trial.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[suutar]

yes, but you believe in accepting risk. Many unfortunately believe that the duty of government is to eliminate risk (to them and theirs, at least).

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[un1nsp1red]

I have a friend who's son is on the no-fly list since he's 3 years old! He's twin brother is not. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Makes sense to me. There's *always* an evil twin. Always....

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Snotnose]

No, hack it to include names like John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

It also means other countries, like Canada, have to inform the US government of everyone that is going to be on the plane should the plane enter US airspace. Even if it is not landing at a US airport. Sometimes flying across Canada or in and out of Canada a plane may enter US airspace for a short period of time but has no intention of staying in US airspace or landing at a US airport.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[radarskiy]

The evil twin is the one NOT on the list, because he submitted false evidence about his brother.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[ArcadeMan]

I'd use the name "Stan Smith" instead.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[radarskiy]

At one point there were 18 David Nelsons in Oregon alone who got hassled at PDX due to the no fly list.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[utoddl]

I have a friend who's son is on the no-fly list since he's 3 years old! He's twin brother is not.

Oh yeah, will I'm DEAD and on the no-fly list, and they can't fly my body back to my hometown for burrial. So there!

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[bware]

Since 2003, it is not so easy to change your name anymore. While in the US, for the most part, you can simply use any name you want, if you want a new passport, you'll have to go before a judge and it's going to cost you about a grand.

Having dealt with various TLAs, it's not difficult for me to believe that they don't have any monitoring system in place for this - incompetence, ignorance, and stupidity abound. On other hand, if I had evil intent in mind and didn't want to get caught, I don't think I'd want to risk triggering this. Far easier to use a mispelled version of your name...

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[jythie]

Well, the hurdle for 'planning' can be pretty low depending on the potential crime.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[jythie]

That would require an arrest warrant of some type at least, which even before the no-fly list could prevent you from traveling.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[geekmux]

You're missing the point. EVERYONE is required to notify the government in advance before they fly.

Recent information brought forth as to the activities of the NSA pretty much fucking guarantees that EVERYONE DOES notify the government in advance before they fly, whether you're required to or not, and whether you wanted to notify them or not.

Perhaps you missed that point.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[AnalogDiehard]

No-fly lists simply shouldn't exist, regardless of whether or not they can work. The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd. As others have said, this is just used for oppression.

There was one case of the no-fly list being used against US Sen Edward Kennedy, proof that it is a tool that can be exploited for political retaliation and oppression.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Joce640k]

Since 2003, it is not so easy to change your name anymore. While in the US, for the most part, you can simply use any name you want, if you want a new passport, you'll have to go before a judge and it's going to cost you about a grand.

...and you can bet they have to notify the people who maintain the no-fly list.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[bware]

you can bet they have to notify the people who maintain the no-fly list.

I would not bet that - the FBI couldn't find me once when it was a simple matter of looking up my name in a phonebook, back when those were still a thing. As I said, incompetence and stupidity abound, as they do in any bureacratic organization.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that legal name changes are (or are not) monitored by TLAs - either way. But I wouldn't bet the success of my plan to take over the world on the lack of it.

 

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[cyn1c77]

No-fly lists simply shouldn't exist, regardless of whether or not they can work. The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd. As others have said, this is just used for oppression.

Don't worry!

The government is likely working to remove that pesky probable cause standard required to arrest someone.

Their operating standards will soon all be consistent!

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[almitydave]

Terrible! Which is why it's so frustrating that even when Congress has the lowest approval ratings ever, nothing much changes. Although technically, the system works: people have the government they repeatedly chose.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[jc42]

So does anyone know if Senator Ted Kennedy is still on the no-fly list?

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[dlt074]

i like an inefficient government. i shudder to think how much faster they could stick it to me if they were competent. we never want an efficient bureaucracy, the only way to win, is not to let them play. defund, disintegrate, and disregard them.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Hobadee]

Not true. I *just* flew from KSFO to KLAS (California to Nevada) with 24 hours notice last week. I got no hassles with security. (Other than the one I created by not going through the backscatter machine, but that's an entirely different topic.)

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Hobadee]

No-fly lists simply shouldn't exist, regardless of whether or not they can work. The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd. As others have said, this is just used for oppression.

I disagree - I think No-fly lists *can* be useful, but only in extremely limited and regulated environments. It should be a revokable right, but you should know when it gets revoked, why it got revoked, and there should be a clear appeals process where you go before a jury of your peers.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anubis IV]

Then too bad. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest someone for committing crimes, they don't get to punish someone without trial. Freedom has risks, and ones I'm more than willing to take.

You're arguing against a straw man. You and I are both in agreement that the straw man doesn't hold up to your arguments, but your arguments do nothing to address the scenario I posed.

Re-read it. I never said they lacked evidence. Rather, what I said was that they would arrest the person as soon as the plane arrived, but that they wanted to take the person into custody sooner because they were concerned that the person might be a danger to the flight. If the local authorities at the point of departure are being uncooperative in preventing the person from boarding the flight, and the US has no jurisdiction to arrest the person at the point of departure, what other recourse is there? Let them board and hope for the best?

Someone below suggested that an arrest warrant (which would indeed be at play in my scenario) would be sufficient, but I can't find evidence that arrest warrants are reliably enforced while in other jurisdictions (in fact, I can find plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as numerous anecdotes of people traveling with active warrants out for their arrest).

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

And you would be wrong.

I changed my name in late 2003. The process was surprisingly easy:

I had some fingerprints taken at county sherriff's office (or some similar facility, I forget the exact place), placed two listings in local legal publications as required by that county's laws, and printed up the one-page motion to change my name, had it notarized, and filed it with the clerk of the court. I also printed up a one-page name-change order for the judge to sign. I seem to recall having that notarized also, but I don't remember if that was before or after he signed it. Both of those orders were pre-made things I found online at a resource that is (or was, at the time) well versed in the process of changing one's name.

All of that was done in the span of around a week, as my schedule permitted.

Total time spent between the initial actions and the final ruling? Around 4 weeks, if I remember right. Most of that time was spent waiting for things to move back and forth in the mail, and waiting for the hearing date.

Total time spent in court? About 1 hour. Some 45 minutes or so of that hour was spent waiting for the case ahead of me to finish.

After that, around 2 weeks waiting for extra copies of the signed order to arrive in the mail after the hearing.

The only significant cost after that was to replace my birth certificate, and it cost me more in gas to go get it than it cost to actually replace it (I was impatient).

Total cost of the entire process? Less than $300, and most of that was the court and publication fees.

No lawyers were involved at any point in the process.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[DarwinSurvivor]

Only if they have an american password.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[hey!]

Well, I haven't thought through *all* the consequences well enough to make such a broad statement, but there is a feature of the no-fly list as currently managed that is very, very dangerous: the blurring of the distinction between suspicion and guilt.

Basically, the founders assumed suspicion was benign. That's because treating someone as suspicious was expensive and self-limiting. You ran an investigation and if it turned up nothing you moved the resources allocated to that investigation elsewhere. Suspicion was a burden an innocent citizen could bear for awhile in return for the authorities catching criminals.

Unlike the founders, we live in a world with the technological and bureaucratic infrastructure to make suspicion pervasive, persistent and automatic. Being flagged as "suspicious" or "dangerous" is something that can follow you everywhere you go, for the rest of your life, unless somebody decides on their own to take you off. And there's never any incentive to take you off. And because the system doesn't even *acknowledge* that this determination has been made about you, you in effect have been found guilty by witnesses and evidence you can't confront or challenge, which is unconstitutional. It is merely quibbling to call such restrictions anything but a deprivation of liberty without due process, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

I think something like a no-fly list might reasonably be maintained, but a person should not be parked on the list for an unlimited time. If the government cannot turn up something in, say, ten weeks, it should remove the person from the list, or give the person an opportunity to challenge his status. That should be automatic and routine as Mirandizing.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[bware]

Things have changed in the decade-plus since 2003, AC. Since the Patriot Act. And court filing fees have certainly gone up.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Shakrai]

No-fly lists simply shouldn't exist, regardless of whether or not they can work. The idea that you can be considered too dangerous (Without a trial!) to fly and yet not dangerous enough to arrest is absurd. As others have said, this is just used for oppression.

There was one case of the no-fly list being used against US Sen Edward Kennedy, proof that it is a tool that can be exploited for political retaliation and oppression.

He was on the list because of someone with a similar name, not because DHS wanted to oppress him. Remember the old adage, "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence."

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Wycliffe]

My dad, an old white american, got detained because he bought a one-way ticket from missouri to
north dakota on the same day of travel. Apparently that was enough to set off red flags and they
almost didn't let him fly. He was going to a funeral but apparently one-way same-day tickets are
suspicious. I would think they would be somewhat common for funerals but apparently not.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[gstoddart]

If there's any hope for the human race, this "list" is a bit more extensive than just a name

And if there's any truth in history, the people who compile and maintain this list are not the ones we put our faith in for the hope for the human race.

These are the same people who missed a suspected terrorist because the name was mis-spelled. Which means they're equally likely to get non-terrorists or duplicate names.

When you have an arbitrary process which isn't transparent, you really can't assume it's being skillfully and accurately applied.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[dbIII]

Other than the one I created by not going through the backscatter machine, but that's an entirely different topic

I'd say give it a few years and you'll be pretty damn happy you didn't expose yourself to the radiation of things that fall through a radiation safety loophole. It's probably a hell of a lot less than a dental x-ray on average but nobody is checking to see if these things are functioning properly - so there are bound to be a few overexposure incidents. All it takes is operating longer than the recommended time.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[dbIII]

people have the government they repeatedly chose

From where I'm standing it looks like hardly any of you bother to get off your arse and even vote. If more of you voted a third party may be viable and the incumbents may start paying more attention to issues voters care about instead of issues that get them "lobby" money (AKA bribes).

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[dbIII]

Frank Herbert had a couple of novels where government ran so smoothly that a Bureau of Sabotage had to be set up to give citizens time to react to decisions. Maybe it was a parody of the CIA since it was written about the same time they were both running guns to Castro and trying to kill him.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Anonymous Coward]

get off your arse and even vote

...And so we did, and voted for a new president who is a guaranteed opposite from the previous one: party, race, social origin. Results? Moving in the same direction at ever accelerating pace. Don't kid yourself, in managed democracy your vote does not matter.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[hairyfeet]

How does it not make sense? the list basically means "this person is a clear and present danger" yet they aren't a danger if they don't get on a plane? WTF? That is like saying "This person is a mass murderer...he has to take the bus" as the entire fucking premise makes no God damned sense!

Either they have done something illegal to get on this list, in which case you should have the fucking EVIDENCE to arrest them for this crime, or they haven't done a damned thing in which case this is just more jack booted bullshit designed to intimidate the masses...Call me paranoid but I think we have enough historical evidence to conclude its most likely the latter.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[dbIII]

You voted for a constitutional lawyer because somehow you thought he was some kind of radical instead of conservative like all other constitutional lawyers? Don't blame me or anyone else bothering to pay attention if you feel cheated. There should have been no surprise that hype is just hype.
Also if more people got involved in the political process that "managed democracy" you are complaining about wouldn't be able to subvert the process.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[Jeremy Erwin]

I approve of my own representative in Congress wholeheartedly. But Congress as a whole is a despicable institution, and other people need to vote their representative out. Repeat 435 times, and nothing will change.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[sjames]

Except, apparently, the risk that an out of control bureaucracy will one day decide they are the risk.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[sjames]

Sorry, there's no hope. The stupid runs deep at the TSA.

Re:Hack it to add American names like "John Smith"

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Yes, it's absolutely true. You (EVERYBODY) is required to supply "Secure Flight Passenger Data" (SFPD) either 72 hours before flying, or when booking the ticket, if departing in less than 72 hours. You just supplied this information for your recent trip, else you would not have been allowed to fly. You are required to give:

Name (as it appears on government-issued ID the passenger plans to use when traveling)
Date of Birth
Gender

Here's how American Airlines, as an example, implements it.

From the TSA website

The airline submits this information to Secure Flight, which uses it to perform watch list matching. This serves to prevent individuals on the No Fly List from boarding an aircraft and to identify individuals on the Selectee List for enhanced screening. After matching passenger information against government watch lists, Secure Flight transmits the matching results back to airlines so they can issue passenger boarding passes.

In other words, YOU are required to tell the government you plan to travel, and they get to decide, in advance, whether you can. Assuming you're not, in their own words, on any "government watch lists".

You can read all about the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

Shocked and saddened

[SpaghettiPattern]

Now even foreigners may have the law supporting them. The American Dream has definitively gone to the dogs.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[jandersen]

Ironically, most Americans (apart from the relatively few Native Americans) were foreigners not long ago.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Tell that to the poor sods in Gitmo still awaiting trial - or charges, for that matter.

Didn't our current Glorious Leader promise to close down that shame of a concentration camp years ago, incidentally?

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Holi]

He did, and he tried, but some ass hats in Congress made it impossible. Please if you gon to cast blame, cast it in the right direction.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

The "American Dream" never existed outside of myth.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[NatasRevol]

I think you mean their ancestors.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Not impossible, he just had to do it without spending any federal money for prisoner transfers. Surely there's a way to do that without money ever needing to change hands for anything.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

You mispelled *Republican* asshats, which is the part someone calling him "Glorious Leader" needs to be reminded of.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[UnderCoverPenguin]

There is also the problem of "not in my backyard". Many people living or working near facilities (both in the the US and in other countries) where any of these prisoners might be moved to have been very opposed to "their" facility receiving any of the Gitmo prisoners.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Not impossible, he just had to do it without spending any federal money for prisoner transfers. Surely there's a way to do that without money ever needing to change hands for anything.

Sure, just not put it on the books - like the entire Iraq war. Perhaps Obama has more integrity than you-know-who.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[iggymanz]

well, I'm not a fan of him but in this case he at least makes "pushes" to close it. most recent here:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

we can talk about dozen other campaign lies, but not this issue

Re:Shocked and saddened

[spire3661]

I am a native american. My family came from Sicily, but I was born here, thus i am a native American. This land is as much mine as any Native American's

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Nephandus]

Now, explain to them the federal government had not popular support (thus wasn't "of the people") till well after the pretentious founding of the country. They won't care. Even those admitting the history of corruption are indoctrinated fanbois/grrls.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[CohibaVancouver]

Didn't our current Glorious Leader promise to close down that shame of a concentration camp years ago, incidentally?

The main problem with "Gitmo" is there isn't anywhere to send many of the prisoners. You put them on a plane and send them to Yemen and Yemen says "They're not citizens. I refuse them admission. Take them back where they came from." Unless you just drop them off in the Afghan desert, what do you do with them?

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Release them on the beach in Cuba. "Survival is your problem now. Don't expect peanut paste and prayer mats from the Cuban government."

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Because republican'ts! That's why! I'm a whiney Democrat baby!

Re:Shocked and saddened

[meta-monkey]

40 acres and a mule?

Re:Shocked and saddened

[phantomfive]

Not to mention some of them actually are terrorists

Re:Shocked and saddened

[currently_awake]

put them on trial. If you have proof of criminal activity then that should be easy. If you don't have proof then send them home. Better a hundred criminals go free than a single innocent man languish in jail.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, enough integrity to not follow through on his word. Must take some kind of strong character for that!

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Drop them off in the Afghan desert.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Which American Dream?

Re:Shocked and saddened

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

I am a native american. My family came from Sicily, but I was born here, thus i am a native American. This land is as much mine as any Native American's

No it isn't! It belongs to the banks you insensitive clod! Now apologize to all of us Banko-Americans immediately.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, most Americans (apart from the relatively few Native Americans) were foreigners not long ago.

Most Americans are foreigners in the USA. You know, South Americans, Central Americans... oh wait, you mean US citizens, who are a subset of North Americans! soooorry!

Re:Shocked and saddened

[NoImNotNineVolt]

You say that as though it matters.

The Democrats and Republicans differ only in the mascot they rally behind. Two sides of the same coin. Keep throwing your vote away on any of these cocksuckers and see how much good that will do.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, most Americans (apart from the relatively few Native Americans) were foreigners not long ago.

"Native Americans" were the first foreigners.

It's not like they evolved here from primitive American primates or something.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no.

I don't see any particular reason Obama couldn't just have let the prisoners loose in Cuba and reassigned all the personnel stationed at Guantanamo bay. As commander and chief he should be able to issue orders for the US personnel to withdraw and leave the doors open behind them (basicly the reverse of the usage that lets the president starts wars without a declaration by ordering troops around).

However he chose not to exercise his authority that way and instead to focus on closing Guantanamo Bay by essentially moving it somewhere else (which was blocked by a combination of NIMBY-ism, Republican obstructionism, and lack of desire to spend any money.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[CrimsonAvenger]

If you don't have proof then send them home.

This is the problem Obama has had with Gitmo - most, if not all, of them are not wanted at home. If we ship them to Afghanistan, the Afghan government will either say "not just no, but fuck no!", or kill them out of hand.

Since we can't ship them off to someplace where they'd be killed out of hand (the ACLU, among others, wouldn't like it), we have to keep them, till we find someone who will accept them, and promise not to kill them.

So far, no takers....

Re:Shocked and saddened

[noh8rz10]

I'm an American and I've never been a foreigner.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[noh8rz10]

I agree. Let's not cast blame on the most powerful man on earth who said he would get something done and then decided it was too hard.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Guantanamo bay isn't just a prison you know...

doing that would make the Cubans happy, but it's actually a very strategic piece of property that dates back to the cold war. simply giving it up wouldn't be the best idea for any commander in chief considering what they went through to get it.

It'd be like giving up Guam.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[CohibaVancouver]

If you don't have proof then send them home

They don't have 'homes' - There is nowhere to send them. Furthermore, if you did somehow prove that some of them are Yemeni or Saudi or whatever, they'd be shot as soon as you pushed them off the plane.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Livius]

He tried to *relocate* it, not close it.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

...fucking libertarians...

Re:Shocked and saddened

[david_thornley]

Because, for an Illinois politician, he's really bad at getting Democrat Senators and Representatives to vote for what he wants. Disappointing.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

we can't ship them off to someplace where they'd be killed out of hand (the ACLU, among others, wouldn't like it),

I don't think the ACLU would actually care about that. They are concerned that these people have been held for years without charges.
Don't go speaking for the ACLU if you are so uninformed please.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Cacadril]

Obama's problem wasn't just obstructionism in Congress. Can you remember the protests when they were thinking of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in New York? If Obama had pushed on these things, his whole presidency would have become impossible. I guess his priority number one is not to leave behind a lesson that says never again to elect a black president. So he kept a low profile and answered only slowly to the allegations that he was born somewhere else than Hawaii.

American voters seem to judge politicians by their perceived strength. If you say stupid things and get away with it, you are strong and get their support. Had the Democrats defended Obama and reason ten times more forcefully and persistently, the Tea Party guys may have ended up looking stupid, and may have lost. But perhaps the Democrats just did not have enough media control to win anyway.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Not impossible, he just had to do it without spending any federal money for prisoner transfers. Surely there's a way to do that without money ever needing to change hands for anything.

Yeah, like telling the wardens to open all the doors and then leave. That surely will costs too much money!

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

The President isn't all powerful. Congress is a pile of shit. What did you expect?

Re:Shocked and saddened

[dbIII]

The chain of evidence is entirely fucked up and even the KGB knew (from a LOT of experience) that evidence obtained under torture was useless for anything other than a show trial.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[khallow]

I expected him to welch on the promise, of course. But if he were serious about closing that prison rather than merely staking an easily retractable position, then he had plenty of time to get it done. A US president doesn't need to be all powerful in order to shut down an illegal prison.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not be confused by the superlative. Even though he may be the most powerful man, that does not make him all that powerful in absolute terms. He is restrained by a large number of individually less powerful men, who are more powerful than him in aggregate.

In fact, I would argue that Putin is a more powerful man than Obama. Even though Russia is less powerful than USA, he excercises more control over Russia than Obama does over USA.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[khallow]

A "push"? All these fancy euphemisms for not honoring a promise. This lie is not off the table merely because he decides to "push" five years late.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[dryeo]

You mean you're a native of the United States of America.If you were actually a native American, you'd be able to show up at the Canadian border, show proof that you're a native American and enter with most all rights of a Canadian. Works the other way too, a Canadian citizen who is a native American can enter the USA and have most all rights of a citizen of the USA. This is one case where American means the North American continent and the founders of the USA agreed that certain peoples had these rights as part of the peace treaty with Great Britain and re-agreed as part of the treaty ending the war of 1812.
Note that treaties are just below the Constitution when it comes to law.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[hairyfeet]

And that would be our fault...how exactly? If Saudi Arabia decides to execute a Saudi citizen...that is a Saudi problem NOT OURS. The same goes for Yemen or anywhere else. I'm sure many here would not like it if say China or Russia started saying "Oh the Americans would just kill 'em anyway" while holding American citizens hostage (and make no mistake as that is what they are, hostages) and by that same token its NOT OUR JOB to try to mindread what the government of wherever will do with their citizens we are holding hostage if we give 'em back.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, Obama is the perfect proof that voting in a two party system is completely and utterly pointless. meet the new boss, same as the old boss, just different slogans covering the same old BS.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[iggymanz]

learn who has what authority. Congress has to close gitmo; the president can only use pulpit to push for that

Re:Shocked and saddened

[spire3661]

What you are describing is a courtesy your government extends to a certain class of indigenous humans with specific ancestry. It does not diminish the fact that I am a native American and am as much part of the land as any anscetral indigenous

Re:Shocked and saddened

[sjames]

Give Congress 30 days to come up with a better plan to close the prison. I'll bet they could come up with something if the alternative is evacuate the base, leave the doors open.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[AK Marc]

You are a natural-born American, not a native American. But I expect you knew that, and you are lying to start a fight with anyone that corrects your lies. Much like a friend of mine from Buenos Aires who insisted on calling himself "an American" with the intention of deceiving others to thinking he was from the USA.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[khallow]

learn who has what authority.

No. Congress has to officially close Gitmo, sure. But the president gets to decide who, if anyone, stays at Gitmo.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[CohibaVancouver]

And that would be our fault...how exactly?

Because if you hand someone over knowing they're going to be shot in the head then you're no better than the killers.

It's the same reason we (Canada) won't extradite someone to the USA if we know a conviction will result in their being killed. It's uncivilized to do otherwise.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[iggymanz]

no, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would let the president release prisoners to countries that would accept them...but guess what? no one wants them.

Also, under that law the president could release the prisoners at the time hostilities against Al Qaeda are declared over. but that fight is not over. in fact, with the way the "war" in Afghanistan done, Al Qaeda was driven to many, many other nations. Our "war" with Iraq turned that country, where Al Qaeda wasn't, into a recruiting and playground for Al Qaeda.

So Gitmo is going to stay open and full of prisoners for a long, long time until such time as Congress makes new law. The President's hands are tied.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[khallow]

So it's takes a modest amount of effort to do something here? I don't at all consider the president's hands to be "tied" just because he has to exert himself.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[dryeo]

It's all semantics but legally in American law you are not a native American, just a natural citizen of the United States of America.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[hairyfeet]

The problem with your logic is thus, unlike Canada where they are holding someone who has broken Canadian laws, go through a Canadian trial etc what we have here is HOSTAGES with no law, multiple accounts of torture (frankly no better than what the Iranians did to the American hostages BTW) so there really is only 1 of 2 choices 1.- They let them free in the USA, 2.- they return them to the country of origin.

And that also sidestepped the point I made which is what exactly will keep any country from doing the exact same with Americans just by using that excuse? last I heard not a single country in question has announced they plan to execute any of them so its just an excuse by the hostage takers at this point isn't it? And with zero evidence to back up that theory to me its just a "she was asking for it" kind of bullshit excuse.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[coolsnowmen]

I don't think that is entirely true. IIRC, a bunch of countries in europe offered to basically match the US in taking some. But congress NIMBY feelings meant no one took any of them.

Re:Shocked and saddened

[iggymanz]

no, not a modest amount of effort at all. Pushing bill through current Congress from subcommittee to passing is like rolling boulder uphill. A Herculean effort.

2006-2014

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

So, 8 years for one person to be taken off the no-fly list. At this rate, ,by around 1,000,000 AD give or take, all innocent citizens denied their basic constitutional right to travel freely without trial will finally be allowed to board an airplane. Good news!

Re:2006-2014

[Zynder]

Bad troll! You assume everyone is innocent. Being a cop yourself, Rosco, I can't even believe you'd assume such a preposterous idea! COO COO COOOO!

Re:2006-2014

[DeVilla]

Amongst other fallacies, sounds like you are assuming it takes longer for an innocent person to get on this list than it does to get off the list. Otherwise the list could ever be free of innocent people.

Re:2006-2014

[khallow]

I don't know. A million is a pretty big number, so that has to be fast.

How is the no fly list legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain how the government can impose penalties on a person without providing the evidence against them? Is the entire premise that you can't show standing because you can't know you're on the list? It seems we have a shitload of that going on right now, whereas we shouldn't have any.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[pegr]

Can someone explain how the government can impose penalties on a person without providing the evidence against them?

No.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

it is not a penalty but scrapping a privilege :)

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

49 U.S.C. 40103 disagrees with your use of the word "privilege". :P

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[phantomfive]

I believe their argument is that flying is a privilege, much like driving a car or getting a visa.
Don't expect me to defend that argument.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Ogive17]

I do not condone these types of lists

That being said, the US government can deny anyone entry for whatever reason they want. No foreigner has a right to enter the US.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

A US Citizens gets put on this list. The US Citizen cannot fly from Denver to Chicago, Nothing to do with a foreigner.

Travel within and between the states is not a privilege it is a right. Not all rights are explicitly spelled out in the constitution. Look at the ninth and tenth amendments.

The SCOTUS needs to remember the existence of the ninth and tenth amendments sometimes. In my opinion they should be the most important amendments and I am not a states rights kind of guy.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Obfuscant]

Travel within and between the states is not a privilege it is a right.

If it is a right then how DARE those greedy airlines charge so much to do it that I cannot afford to do it. I think the government should step in and pay for airplane rides for poor people so they can enjoy their rights.

Now, if only someone could invent some means of interstate travel that didn't use airplanes, so those people whose right to travel interstate wasn't being stripped from them by being on a no-fly list. I mean, we can fly people from New York to London in just a few hours, you'd think someone could invent a way of traveling just a few hundred miles over land without having to fly. It isn't rocket science -- literally.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The no fly list also targets citizens, and also prevents domestic travel. Denying entry to non-citizens can easily be done by denying/cancelling their visa.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[noh8rz10]

Idiot.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[PrimaryConsult]

And to pre-empt any response that says "flying is not a right", you can't take a bus to Hawaii and the U.S. Territories...

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[anybody_out_there]

What about a boat?

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Hobadee]

Can someone explain how the government can impose penalties on a person without providing the evidence against them? Is the entire premise that you can't show standing because you can't know you're on the list? It seems we have a shitload of that going on right now, whereas we shouldn't have any.

Yes I can explain it; The government has bigger guns and more jail space than you do, and if you don't like it they will put you in jail. If you resist they will shoot you. (Hey, at least they give you the option of going to jail - some governments will start with shooting you!)

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can take a boat.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[joe_frisch]

Yes, they have a bunch of guys with guns.

Oh, you mean "should" they impose penalties without due process.....

Americans sadly seem willing to trade their hard won rights and freedoms for a little safety. Certainly not the way I'd vote (assuming there was a candidate who didn't support this), but one of the disadvantages of a democracy is that sometimes the will of the majority isn't very clever.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I believe their argument is that flying is a privilege, much like driving a car or getting a visa.

It's not even arguable:

U.S. Code S. 40103 - Sovereignty and use of airspace
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.
(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...

Driving is not a privilege either - it's essential to the right of Free Assembly (as is air travel in 2014, incidentally). Don't believe the claptrap in the driver's manual.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this: they can show up at your doorstep, proclaim you an "enemy combatant" and put you on a one-way to Guantamo, without a right to trial. This is the same exact method how "enemies of the people" ended up in Gulag in Stalin's Russia.

Re:How is the no fly list legal?

[Ogive17]

This article is not about a US citizen getting removed from the list, though.

Face Palm

[Patent Lover]

The whole concept of a no-fly list so utterly asinine that it boggles the mind. Too dangerous to fly in a plane after going through security, not dangerous enough to arrest. Riiiiiiight.

Re:Face Palm

[Minwee]

It gets better. Would you believe that people who actually are suspected terrorists are kept off of the list to avoid tipping them off?

Re:Face Palm

[naasking]

I was just thinking this. The no-fly-list is counterproductive to intelligence work in which an important tool is surreptitiously tracking a person's movements to build a map of their contact network. All the no-fly-list does would do is make it harder to track the movement of terrorists because they would be forced to use less visible means of communication and transport, which means real terrorists probably aren't on the list at all, which completely contradicts the stated purpose of this "security measure". It's asinine.

Re:Face Palm

[Virtucon]

Sounds more like California.

Oh and California you still owe me a bag of oranges. I was planning to use those to sell in LA and pay for the family trip to Disneyland. F-Wads!

Re:Face Palm

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking for the state of CA, screw you and your foreign oranges. We don't need your fruitborne larva and mold spores here in our crops. ;)

Re:Face Palm

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just mad you didn't get to patent that idea!

Re:Face Palm

[Anonymous Coward]

At least California don't supposedly protect their pink, invisible unicorn population from suddenly bad tasting Tennessee whiskey, all of which is actually a pseudonym for a fast tracking a construction project by a Californian company in the Tennessee area. The Tennessee officials can only find out all this by humbly visiting the Imperial California State Senate and drinking some Californian officials under the table.

Ooh, a Lego MMORPG

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

1 person? Maybe this just shows the incredible accuracy with which the government determines these things!

(Looks at human history briefly.). No. No...hehehe no.

The Handmaid's Tale

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to reread the chapter in The Handmaid's Tale where she can't buy cigarettes because her credit id no longer works.

how is no fly not a first amendment violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

aren't all travel restrictions inherently an interference with the right to peaceably assemble?

of course since the new deal supreme court cases the constitution has been fundamentally meaningless so whatever carry on

Re:how is no fly not a first amendment violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apart from the fact they have the biggest Guns on their side you could argue without the Constitution the Supreme has no legitimacy.

no reasonable options

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the hell is this allowed to persist? There are no reasonable options to knowing if someone is on the list? No structured way of correcting errors without going in front of a judge? We need a more direct way of remedying such bullshit because all we can choose if we put one asshole democrat who supports this shit or an asshole republican who supports this shit. This is supposed to be OUR government and citizens are supposed to wield the power to change things. This country is run more and more like a corrupt dictatorship.

Re:no reasonable options

[camperdave]

How in the hell is this allowed to persist?

Complacency of the citizenry, plain and simple.

Re:no reasonable options

[CohibaVancouver]

How in the hell is this allowed to persist?

A majority of the citizens that vote don't care.

Re:no reasonable options

[meta-monkey]

Not necessarily. I thought Obama was going to end this shit. Call me gullible, but that's the only reason I held my nose and voted for him in 2008. "At least we can stop bombing people and shut down gitmo..." Haha, nope, joke's on me!

Re:no reasonable options

[John.Banister]

As I understand it, airlines can't avoid the TSA regulating their airports owing to the ownership of the land on which the airports are found. Amtrak has had much better success at throwing the TSA out from time to time because they own the land on which they operate. On a number of occasions, I rode the Saab 340 from Anchorage to Dutch Harbor without the benefit of the TSA. That's a long flight with a short runway. If there's over 100k people who want to fly and can't, perhaps there's becoming enough of a market that someone (say, with Al Maktoum family kind of money) could build a small network of small airports and start No Security Theater Airlines. I imagine that if they get rid of the dehumanizing scans and let you lock your valuables in secure checked bags, they'd get a lot more customers than just "no fly list" people.

Re:no reasonable options

[i.r.id10t]

Already exists - just charter a plane. For a single person traveling it is kinda expensive, but for a group it is no worse than first class...

Re:no reasonable options

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt the economics would bear out independent airports, but I would take the no-TSA airport every time.

Re:no reasonable options

[John.Banister]

So then, maybe a non-airline, a plane chartering cooperative with a website that coordinates TSA-free travel interests.

Re:no reasonable options

[i.r.id10t]

They exist already - search for dead head flight sharing (no, no tie dye or Miracle Tickets needed), typically done with corporate planes.

http://www.jetcharters.com/emp...

There are still similar names and copies of lists

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Besides the possibility of a match to a similar name, even if only "official" copies of the the no-fly list are consulted, I would not be surprised if copies of her entry linger in the various copies of that list.

(A friend of mine who has a name similar to someone on a sex offenders' list was mistakenly added as a variant spelling of the original listing. Even after getting a court order to remove his listing, it had propagated to other copies and was eventually merged back in to the original as updates were passed around the various government agencies. He then got an order to amend his listing to state it was invalid, but (A) that merely added a new entry, with no guarantee which entry would show first, and (B), most checkers don't look beyond seeing of there is a match.)

In the mean time Obama is letting into the country

[3seas]

...http://chersonandmolschky.com/2014/02/28/obamas-america-safe-haven-terrorists/

Kinda makes the No Fly List pointless.

Time to change my name to something common

[Anonymous Coward]

John Smith?
Teh fo?

Re:Time to change my name to something common

[Virtucon]

I prefer I.P. Freely.

Re:Time to change my name to something common

[Anonymous Coward]

what about Ben Dover?
or Hugh Janus or Mike Hawk..

Not alerting the terrorists

[Firethorn]

My first thought was 'Given Fast&Furious*, yes'.

*Operation Fast&Furious, where the ATF actually ordered a number of gun stores to sell to obvious Mexican cartel related straw purchasers in order to bust cartel leaders and such, then lost track of the guns.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

It's not like the Mexicans wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns some other way.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[qbast]

Great justification. You don't mind if I kill you, right? You are going to die sooner or later anyway.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[lgw]

Illegal arms brokers are quick with that line. It may even be true. But that doesn't make it any less immoral to be the one doing it. We should not be the ones doing it.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[asylumx]

Reductio Ad Absurdum fallacy at its finest.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

So, the same people would have killed the same other people with guns. But because it's these guns that got here by this program, this program is responsible? No you're dumb.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

But it puts us in a better position to gain intelligence. Sometimes that doesn't pan out, but it provides an opportunity and doesn't make the situation worse. In this case, we've learned the limits of acquiring intelligence in this exact way; maybe this is a limitation of trying to track guns, or a limitation of the methods we used, but regardless we've still learned something.

That information wasn't really obtained at any expense beyond the basic economic program expense, and it has some value. You just don't like people being an observer behind the green camera instead of the blue one; it's okay to be behind the blue camera, but only assholes look through the green one.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[lgw]

That information wasn't really obtained at any expense beyond the basic economic program expense

It's been demonstrated that federal agents were killed with these weapons. I call that fucking expensive.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[HeckRuler]

He's pointing out an appeal to probability fallacy.

Possibly Restrospective Determinism as well.

His reasoning behind his complaint is valid, and the claim that "the mexicans would have gotten guns some other way" is an invalid counterpoint.

Just because you've heard of this "logical fallacy" thing doesn't mean you should beat people over the head with it.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[HeckRuler]

that information wasn't really obtained at any expense beyond the basic economic program expense

Plus, you know, helping arm the Mexican cartels. Kinda the opposite of their stated goal.
This is a "means" vs. "end" issue. Does beating up the lich justify slaughtering a bunch of orphans on the way there.

If you think it all boils down to money, then sure, it's just some "basic economic expense". But if you take that reasoning, the cost of all those dead vietnam war draftees was just "basic economic expense". Because at the end of the day, it's all comes down to money.

but regardless we've still learned something.

That given the opportunity, the people fighting the war on drugs will blatantly break federal law in a vain attempt in an impossible struggle?

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

People have been killed by bad drivers running red lights in Chevrolet cars. If Chevrolet didn't make cars then those people would not have been killed because said bad drivers would not have cars with which to run red lights.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[lgw]

Don't conflate accidents with predictable consequences. Drunk drivers is the better analogy. And driving drunk is, in fact, a serious crime. As is selling arms to the cartels.

Why are you even trying to defend actions like this? Are you so enamored of some political party that you'll bend over backwards to defend their most egregious actions? Don't be that guy - every political party will fuck you sideways for a laugh; none of them deserve any loyalty.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

I don't know about 'helping to arm the Mexican cartels'. I think the market for illegally obtained firearms is larger than the demand, so they'll apply the same resources with the same efficiency in any case.

It's like selling marijuana in Baltimore. Everyone has tons of marijuana. You can go outside and come back 5 minutes later with a bag full of marijuana even if you've never bought marijuana and have no idea how to go about getting any. Selling marijuana in Baltimore as an intelligence gathering information isn't going to put more weed on the streets.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Because you're conflating emotional judgment with rational judgment.

Why are you even trying to defend actions like this?

Well, your argument is this: Mexicans would be incapable of murdering as many people if we didn't give them guns.

Let's look at the facts. Illegal firearms trafficking is highly lucrative. There is a healthy economy for illegal firearms, and in fact firearms can be made at home with a hammer, an anvil, some fire, and metal. Blacksmithing guns is a common hobby. CNC machines and other manufacture capabilities are cheap and readily available, so without a supply of trafficked firearms the illegal firearms supply economy could readily develop the capacity to make their own. They haven't because it's cheaper and easier to acquire them from legal sources, by fraud or theft.

In the absence of concrete statistical evidence, the circumstances strongly suggest that Mexican cartels have many sources of firearms and can acquire them at relative ease from any of them. This is the same as how we have so many drugs available in America--herione, marijuana, cocaine--including major imports from Canada (marijuana) and central/south America (cocaine), as well as the ready availability of child sexual human trafficking. There is a market demand for illegal firearms, and historically contraband has been hard for the everyman to get but relatively easy for organized cartels to get.

Under these premises, the only logical conclusion you can draw from a Mexican killing someone with a firearm that was sold under a Federal intelligence program is... that's where that particular firearm got to. Trying to conclude that there would be one less firearm in the hands of Mexican drug cartels is like trying to conclude that there will be less popcorn in theaters if Orvelle Reddenbacker stops selling popcorn. Okay, your local super market may have a shortage; your local theater will contact an alternate supplier and not miss a beat.

Moral victories are not real; they're imaginary constructions made so that you can criticize peoples' non-harmful actions as being terrible and evil.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[lgw]

Well, your argument is this: Mexicans would be incapable of murdering as many people if we didn't give them guns.

Wow, you ignored every one of my posts to cling to this pre-conceived objection. No point is writing anything further then.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[Firethorn]

But it puts us in a better position to gain intelligence.

Not in this case. The F&F plan had major gaps in it which doomed it to failure(no significant intel gain, much less any busts). Part of what makes it inexcusable is that there had been previous programs along the same lines, but they actually worked because the US police agencies were actually working with Mexican police agencies to keep the tracking up when the weapons crossed the border. This didn't happen in F&F.

If a truck or two slipped the net I could understand it, but they literally had no plan for how to keep the tracking up when the weapons crossed the border, nor did they bust them at the border to recover the illegal weapons because they couldn't track further.

To make it clear: I'm less pissed about the program(previous versions worked) than I am about screwing up the plan such that it couldn't work. If they had coordinated with the Mexican police it would have been a fine program.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[asylumx]

Just because you've heard of this "logical fallacy" thing doesn't mean you should beat people over the head with it.

That one is called "Ad Hominem."

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[Quila]

Then why don't I get into the gunrunning business? Don't arrest me officer, they were going to get their hands on the weapons some other way anyway.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[PrimaryConsult]

It does make the situation worse; by adding sources it drives down the price of the weapons, allowing the cartels to to be better armed for less money.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[HeckRuler]

You don't know about "helping to arm the Mexican cartels"?

THEY SOLD ARMS TO THE MEXICAN CARTELS.

DIRECTLY.

Selling marijuana in Baltimore as an intelligence gathering information isn't going to put more weed on the streets.

No, that's simply not true. You could say that would not have an significant impact. That it's a drop in the ocean. But it's simply false to say that it doesn't put more weed on the streets.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't. He didn't personally attack you. He didn't call you a name. He's simply stating "just because all you have is a hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail," Dumbass. There's an ad hom. Go re-read your wiki page on logical fallacies and try again.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[Zynder]

You have zero evidence that those gangbangers would have gotten another gun. It's statistically likely, sure, but you cannot say with any certainty that it was gonna happen. However, if you do find someone who was murdered by a gov provided gun, then you can say with 100% certainty that law enforcement are accessories to murder because they knew what they were doing when they provided those weapons. They certainly understood the risks and consequences of giving gang members operational military-grade weaponry. They didn't seem too concerned about it. You don't seem too concerned a few poor brown people got killed with our help. qbast's response was on target.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[Zynder]

When I responded to you above, I just thought you were being an asshole. Now I come to realize that you actually believe the BS you're spouting off. Firstly, don't accuse someone with not thinking rationally when you, yourself, can't do the same. I already told you, you cannot say with certainty that this guy will kill that guy no matter what I do. You CAN say that because that guy killed this guy with a gun you gave him, you helped him do it. Don't believe me? I can't possibly post all of the case law that hinges on this very notion. You are just wrong and can't admit it. Care to quadruple down and try again?

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[Zynder]

It does too, you idiot! It adds exactly the amount to the streets that the seller sold! Sounds like the Baltimore education system failed you! I know what you're getting at though and you're still wrong. If, for whatever reason, a bag of Baltimore weed you sold me kills me when I smoke it then all you know is a bag of Baltimore weed killed me when I smoked it and you sold it to me. That does indeed make you legally culpable and prosecutable. You can't say that if I had bought anyone else's weed it still would have killed me. All that we know right now, is the weed you sold me killed me. The whole problem we're arguing over is that it was the COPS that "sold me a bag that killed me" and therefore they won't be legally culpable and certainly won't get prosecuted for it. Selling "weed" isn't their job so they shouldn't be doing it. That is the immorality LGW was talking about and this may be the only thing (s)he and I will ever agree on: WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT!

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[dbIII]

I'm still pissed off about selling weapons to terrorists. Even if it was done indirectly via Iran Poindexter, North etc still knew Hezbolla was paying the money.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[khallow]

It's not like the Mexicans wouldn't have gotten their hands on guns some other way.

US law doesn't actually work that way. If you knowingly assist in a murder, even if it would have happened anyway without your help, you are an accessory to murder. That's a felony. They also were engaging in criminal negligence.

One of the key aspects of the Fast and Furious case is that they reviewed the case, about a year in, and determined that a lot of these weapons ended up at crime scenes, including murders (20-30% of the weapons which had been transported into Mexico to that point, if I recall correctly). Yet they chose to continue the program.

At that point, they became accessories to the crimes committed with these weapons including a number of murders. And these firearms still occasionally show up at crime scenes.

Toss in that a US law enforcement officer died in a firefight which had two of these weapons involved (which incidentally was what finally shut down the program), and there probably should be some ATF agents getting put away for a long time.

The problem here is not that they were doing what normally would have been a fairly standard sting operation under difficult conditions (crossing a country border with some portion of the police on the other side coopted by large drug cartels), but rather the vile and callous disregard for the consequences of allowing high quality weapons, which they knew would mostly be used for criminal purposes, to be smuggled across the border without either notifying the Mexican authorities or keeping track of the weapons.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[sjames]

But officer, someone was going to speed here anyway, so I shouldn't get a ticket. Try that next time and see how it goes.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

We've learned this is a good way to waste money for poor results. The gain is minimal and possibly wasn't worth the cost. Also we got an ego-slap for trying to go it alone, especially without a plan.

That's not worth the huge public outrage centered around giving criminals guns. That particular aspect has no real impact: no one died because of this mishandling, as criminals could easily get guns elsewhere.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

False equivalence. You're trying to profiteer on illegal activity. Fast and Furious was ATF trying (ineffectively) to gain intelligence about illegal activity for the purpose of stopping it. The news made a bunch of noise about arming the cartels, but that's not really an issue because they are net armed the same as they would have been anyway; overall we have more intelligence, if only that we can't run a program the way we did and expect to gain anything useful from it.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

There's MORE SUPPLY THAN DEMAND. More supply means there's 100,000 of a thing and only 10,000 of the thing gets bought. If you add 20,000 more, now there's 120,000 of a thing and only 10,000 of the thing gets bought.

It's not a drop in the ocean; it's a non-impact. You can start selling windows, but there are only so many houses. If you sell any windows, someone else will sell exactly that many fewer.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

You have zero evidence that the gun used in a murder was not another gun that had the same physical characteristics, up to and including a reproduction of some marking like the serial number. It's statistically unlikely, but you cannot say with any certainty that it was actually the same gun, right?

We have statistical evidence showing that there is a huge supply of black-market firearms for cheap, competitive with market prices. We can actually say with what is called "high certainty" that Mexican drug cartels would have gotten firearms in some other manner. That's what statistics is: certainty. Not 100% certainty. Just certainty.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

You CAN say that because that guy killed this guy with a gun you gave him, you helped him do it.

No, you can't. You can make a philosophical argument, but you can't make a real argument. It's the Ship of Theseus: you still have a ship, but is it THE Ship of Theseus? Well, in a sense, yes. And no. Kind of. Both, really, and neither. There's a fuzzy point where it's no longer the Ship of Theseus, but nobody can pin down when that is; and if the other ship didn't exist, it would definitely be the Ship of Theseus. But if it was built with the same material, in the same shape, molecularly identical but with a different sequence of events, it would definitely NOT be the Ship of Theseus.

Don't believe me? I can't possibly post all of the case law that hinges on this very notion. You are just wrong and can't admit it.

Nope, that's irrelevant. Case law hinges on a "notion", an ideal, as you said. It doesn't hinge on rationality, but rather on judgment.

For example:

you cannot say with certainty that this guy will kill that guy no matter what I do.

That's true. However, in this case, we can say with certainty that this guy did kill this other guy with a firearm. We can also say with high certainty that this guy would have acquired a firearm no matter what you do--to the point that arguing that he wouldn't is irrational and flat out idiotic. It's like if you argued that if you, personally, didn't buy me lunch last week, then I would starve to death. As I have a job and tend to buy my own lunch, it's most likely I would have found food by my own means.

The philosophical ideal that providing firearms in this program makes you culpable is only philosophical. It is not actually rational in an environment where the supply of black-market firearms outstrips the demand. To argue otherwise is to argue that we can't really know that chicken eggs are from chickens, since the farmer just finds 99.999% of eggs under chickens and doesn't witnessing them berthing the eggs, thus the eggs may be put there secretly by gnomes.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Uh, let's try this again: There is more weed available in Baltimore than can be sold. If you can sell 100 of a thing, but you have 1000 of a thing, giving you 100 more means you end the day with 1000 of that thing instead of 900 of that thing.

Do you not know about scarcity? Please go study high school economics again; you're not ready for college yet.

And legal arguments are not factual, logical arguments; they're rule-set arguments, mainly philosophical, based on approximated models of reality and idealism. This gets into complex arguments about culling down a behavior even though "if I didn't do it then someone else would" i.e. removing one group's contributions is a null factor, versus allowing that same behavior for an alternative purpose. For example: we allow research where people are given marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and psilocybin mushrooms to consume, even though we ban these substances... should researchers be legally culpable for this? What's the difference between research and dealing on the streets?

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

I don't care about US law.

Get that through your head: I don't care about the law.

All I care about is cause and effect. What was the impact of this mishandling? The media says there are many guns in the hands of cartels where they would have no guns, and many people have died who would not be dead because the cartels would not have tools of murder. I don't believe that for one second: there are so many guns for sale on the black market that you can build a small army on a middle-class salary.

People aren't crying over the law; they're using the law as a shillelagh to beat people over the head with because of an emotional reaction to a non-issue. All these firearms could have been prevented from getting into the hands of Mexicans; instead, they would get different firearms, possibly better ones like AK-47s, which are readily available even in fucking Libya.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

False equivalence. Try something that's not scarce. Every speeder on the road adds 1 more speeder to the freeway. By contrast, there are so many guns on the black market that they can't sell them all.

For that matter, the interference had a purpose. It's not like you start selling weed to profit and you're basically breaking the law. This was a (poorly) planned operation aimed at finding more information to use in the pursuit of enforcement against Mexican drug cartels. It didn't work, but it wasn't just "breakin' da law!"

Use the rational part of your brain. The one called the prefrontal contex. That Amygdala thing is nothing but trouble; it causes you to not actually think.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[Quila]

Fast and Furious was ATF trying (ineffectively) to gain intelligence about illegal activity for the purpose of stopping it.

That's the story, from somebody we know has no problem lying about the program under oath.

Think about this: The big PR blitz trying to ban "assault weapons" because they're flowing to Mexico began after the F&F program started shipping these guns to Mexico in large quantities. Once the nature of the program was revealed, the big PR quieted down.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Conspiracy theory, but still better than "people died because we sold the Mexicans guns." The conspiracy theory is actually more likely.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[sjames]

Are you actually trying to tell me that speeding is rare? A group in Atlanta once conspired to drive on the interstate in a big group and travel at the speed limit. They were ticketed for obstructing traffic!

If you're going to make insulting statements about using the brain, you shouldn't lead off with brain-dead patently false claims.

Selling weapons to drug dealers is a crime. The Feds committed that crime. To make it worse, they then fumbled so badly, they failed to retrieve the weapons.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Speeding is scarce, not rare. More to the point: space is scarce. If we lived on a planet 20 times bigger and you only ever saw a car every 300 miles of driving, we'd be very lonely. Also, if 90% of the world started speeding one day, nobody would notice because hardly anybody would ever see anyone else to know they were speeding too.

When you start speeding, everybody notices. You are essentially consuming a resource that can't accommodate everyone. Everyone wants to speed: everyone wants to blast their ass down the road at 90mph to get where they're going. They can't. A few of us can. Assuming we all have the skill to do this successfully in normal circumstances (i.e. pass all the traffic), we'd wind up with unimpeachable traffic congestion if we all tried to speed down the road ridiculously fast. Really, when there's enough cars on the road, we can't even drive half the speed limit. We'd pack the cars together really fast, then all have to drive slow again. Very slow.

Black market firearms are not scarce. There's more firearms available than there are purchase orders for firearms. There's a huge market for black market firearms and it draws a lot of arms dealers.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[sjames]

I may be missing your definition, but scarce is not a word I would apply to speeding. Even on a lonely interstate at 4A.M. it is not at all uncommon to have someone speed past you. Unless there's a traffic jam, the rarity is seeing someone who isn't speeding.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Because you don't fucking understand economics. Do you not know what scarcity is? When 100 people want meat, and there is a deer, the deer can feed like 20 people. THAT'S SCARCE!

When you go speeding, you consume a resource: the road can only handle so many cars traveling at a given speed. The higher the speed, the fewer cars it can handle. This is a space issue: more space, more speed. Speeding consumes a resource, and if everybody tried to do it we would wind up in traffic jams. Speeding is an example of a scarce resource: the ability to go fast in traffic, in which if enough people went fast we would wind up in a traffic jam.

Look, go your ass to California and try to get water. There's no water there! They pipe it in from Nevada! It's not scarce because there's no water; it's scarce because there's not enough water to meet the demand for water!

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[sjames]

When you go speeding, you consume a resource: the road can only handle so many cars traveling at a given speed.

And you clearly know nothing of highway engineering. Or should I say you don't FUCKING know anything about highway engineering. (First hint, you shouldn't fuck on the highway. You probably shouldn't study economics while fucking either.).

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[HeckRuler]

Then why are they sending people to prison for selling weapons to Mexican cartels?

And when I say "they" I mean the exact same literal people who sold weapons to Mexican cartels are sending people to prison for selling weapons to Mexican cartels.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Gee I don't know. Why are we sending people to prison for being hookers? There are so many hookers around here.

Oh. Maybe its so EVERYONE doesn't become a hooker, since the situation could be worse. Maybe because you have to cull down the supply to "exactly meets demand" before you can cull it further to "comes below demand". You know, what they were trying to do: find out more about how this whole gun trafficking thing goes on so they can make maximally-effective stings, increasing risk and causing price increases (artificial scarcity).

Also: there's a distinct difference between arms trafficking and government-sanctioned espionage that involves arms trafficking. Why do people constantly pull out this "well the government did X and that exists in a bubble regardless of all other things that happened?" The government charges you taxes; should we arrest them for robbing you at gun point, since they send people with guns if you don't pay them?

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[HeckRuler]

Ok, you gotta help me with this... They're sending people to jail for selling weapons to Mexican cartels "so EVERYONE doesn't [do it], since the situation could be worse. Maybe because you have to cull down the supply". And yet, when the police add to the supply, since there's so much supply "it's a non-impact".

When people do it, it's illegal because they're making the situation worse.
When the cops do it, it's not illegal because it's not making the situation worse. ... I'm sorry dude, you have to pick one. Your last post is completely at odds with your rest of your justification for why the police's actions aren't illegal.

Also: there's a distinct difference between arms trafficking and government-sanctioned espionage that involves arms trafficking.

. . . Really? "It's not illegal when we do it?" You're actually trying to use that argument legitly?
Now, you're partly right. You ARE onto something. There IS a difference between arms trafficking and espionage. The two are completely different things. BUT, in this case the espionage includes illegal arms trafficking.

Arms trafficking is being compared to arms trafficking that involves government-sanctioned espionage. And that's a perfectly legitimate comparison. It's DOES NOT MATTER what the fuck their justification is. The rule of law means that an illegal action is illegal no matter who you are. Now, a lot of such laws have exceptions and waivers and such for EXACTLY this sort of thing. You can pretty much measure how corrupt and abused the legal system is by how many such exceptions there are and how often they are used. But there are no waivers here. They straight up performed an illegal activity and let the guns walk in an effort to fight a hopeless war.

What do you think about the CIA dealing drugs in foreign countries?
Do you think it's not illegal? Why do you think such actions are "clandestine" in the first place. Why do you think we're not openly admitting that the CIA deals drugs abroad? Because it is balls to the walls illegal.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Ok, you gotta help me with this... They're sending people to jail for selling weapons to Mexican cartels "so EVERYONE doesn't [do it], since the situation could be worse. Maybe because you have to cull down the supply". And yet, when the police add to the supply, since there's so much supply "it's a non-impact".

Scenario 1: hacking into computers isn't illegal. Result: most teenagers and middling adults learn to hack into computers. They start hacking into computers, damaging service, stealing sensitive information, and the economy collapses.

Scenario 2: Hacking into computers is illegal. Result: A lot of people know not to do that shit. The ones that do are more careful, avoiding high-value targets and generally trying to not get caught. Opportunities are smaller. Collateral damage is smaller.

Scenario 3: Scenario 2, but also you hire a penetration tester. More information is gathered, and the hackers not dissuaded by Scenario 2 have more difficulty breaking into your shit.

Clear enough? Or are you going to argue that shit being illegal and getting people arrested isn't a deterrent for other people who would do said illegal shit?

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[HeckRuler]

Except you're confused about the negative impact of the two examples.

In your hacking example, the negative aspect to it is "damaging service, stealing sensitive information,". Which doesn't happen in scenario #3 because it's done by "professionals" who are presumably above that sort of thing.

In the selling arms to mexican cartels example, the negative aspect is selling arms to Mexican cartels. Who then go and shoot people. And that is happening whether nor not it's cops doing the selling.

Here, lemme show you. Let's say we were to take your hacking example and apply it to the issue at hand:

Scenario 1: Selling arms to mexican cartels isn't illegal. Result: Prices bottom out on weapons, the mexican cartels are well armed, and lots of people are shot

Scenario 2: Selling arms to mexican cartels is illegal. Result: What we have now. People that sell arms to mexican cartels are put in prison. When we find them. Presumably this drives up the cost of arming the cartels and makes life harder for them and in turn makes illegal drugs more expensive and less prevalent. If you believe in that whole free market thing at least, and believe the war on drugs has a prayer of working.

Scenario 3: Like scenario #2, but cops have an exception. Result: Just like #2, but quantifiably worse for every weapon that the cops sell. Because each one is going directly towards the negative impact.

Unlike your hacking example, where the negative aspect is a side-effect of people learning about network security, the negative aspect is EXACTLY what the police were doing. They are DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Again: mexican cartels have ample access to firearms. Their current source is always a source of convenience; our ultimate goal is to make it a source of desperation--to trim down the black market until it's less than convenient.

You keep coming back to this "oh, we did this, and people died because of it." No. People died in situations that would have almost certainly occurred if we didn't do this, but did do everything else responsible for the situation (you know, like following these people, sending agents on that day, etc.). It happens to be that the gun they got was from here, and not from some other source where they would have gotten a gun anyway.

Let's talk about "almost certainly". You know this girl, and she goes to a party and gets gangbanged by like 30 guys, and ends up pregnant. If we removed one of the guys--he never made it to the party--then she got gangbanged by 29 guys, and almost certainly would have gotten pregnant anyway. it's possible that some motion caused her to ovulate a day early, or experience an extra ovulation, and that it was triggered specifically by events which would not have occurred nor equivalent if that one guy wasn't there; but if I tried to pin the blame on that one guy based on this possibility, you would tell me I'm retarded. Because it's stupid.

The sun could get hit by a comet approaching from the blind side that we haven't been able to detect, and then explode. We're not preparing for the sun to explode and kill us all tomorrow because that's stupid. Our sun almost certainly isn't about to get hit by a comet and then explode, killing us all, tomorrow.

If you say, "People died because the mexicans got these particular guns", you are almost certainly wrong. To make that argument makes you either a con man or an idiot.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[HeckRuler]

Well you're getting better, I guess.

You started out saying that:

that information wasn't really obtained at any expense

It's not a drop in the ocean; it's a non-impact

And now you're onto:

If you say, "People died because the mexicans got these particular guns", you are almost certainly wrong.

That's at least... you know... something.

Along the way there, you tried to veer off onto side topics like the nature of deterrents, and how cops are above the law. You also had a couple of shitty examples. Hookers, hackers, and gang-bangs? Dude.

But ultimately, you've got a contradiction in your argument that you just can't seem to fathom. I don't think I'm going to have any luck showing it to you. Good luck with that.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

There's no effective difference. The sky is almost certainly not purple outside right now. It could turn purple.

You have no concept of how decision making works if you don't understand that. You tried pulling out the "well, I mean, there's this statistics thing, and there's a 0.0000000000000000001% chance or something, you know, I mean, it could happen, so MAYBE people died because of us" argument. You know what the counter-argument is? The counter-argument is yes, you're right, and maybe your heart could explode with the force of 50 sticks of dynamite due to hydrogen gas build-up in your bloodstream. It's almost certainly not going to happen--which means it won't happen.

If they repeated FF a hundred thousand times, the most likely, near-certain result would be not one single situation where a criminal would have a firearm in which he wouldn't have a firearm if the Government didn't leak one. Trying to claim that "there's still a possibility" in this situation is idiotic. There's a greater possibility that FF is a coverup and that the operation was a humongous success, the people reported dead are actually retired eating caviar under a constructed identity, and we're primed now to do it again in a few years and continue to pretend it's a huge fuckup.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[HeckRuler]

You tried pulling out the "well, I mean, there's this statistics thing, [blahblahblah]

What the fuck are you smoking? ...oh. Hey, would you look at that. Other people can't believe you're actually arguing this point and you're getting confused about who is saying what. Yeah, no, that wasn't me. I'm also not the one harping on the fact that people got murdered by this program. I spent my time just trying to show you the really bloody obvious double-think you have going on when it comes to cops selling guns to drug lords.

Who have we got here? sjames, Zynder, lgw, quila, firethorn. And me, I guess. Damn son, you've got a knack for some high quality bait. If this is just some massive trolling attempt you have won GOLD.

Seriously though, try reading the arguments made against your position before you spout out some random shit in your head. It helps sway the crowd.

If they repeated [Fast&Furious] a hundred thousand times, the most likely, near-certain result would be...

...that they get tried by the ICJ for supplying arms to an anti-government militant force in another sovereign nation like they did with Contras in Nicaragua. Seriously, at that point it's no longer a criminal investigation, it's unsanctioned military aid.

Jesus Christ dude, you're treating the scenario like a hard bedrock of immovable fact. That X guns will be bought by the Mexican cartels and if more than X guns are sold by anyone then nothing changes. Sorry, reality just doesn't work that way. If you flood or starve a market it has an effect. Not always the most obvious.

Re:Not alerting the terrorists

[bluefoxlucid]

Flooding and starving markets has an effect; however, you get diminishing returns when flooding a flooded market. So yes, with a flooded market, if you trickle a few things in, nothing changes.

If I dump you in the Atlantic ocean and then pour a pot of tea on top, the pot of tea is not responsible for you drowning, even if you inhale water molecules from the tea pot.

It only took 8 years!

[Anonymous Coward]

Eight. Years.

what it sounds like is Highschool..

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously,I am sure at one point or another we have all had an insecure individual try to project those in-equalities on others.
Moving past that, It just an attempt by various others, to impose their misgivings..

I for one think its total BS..

but then again whom knows how the adolescent mind, right??

Perhaps Dr. Phill??

hahaha imagine the day when Dr. Phill/Oprah is actually running the free world at some point.

man imagine the Fubar!

Idea for replacing the lengthy appeals process

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that the Supreme Court has upheld freedom of travel is a right, and given that the no-fly list violates that right of anybody whose name is on it:

Make the first step in the appeal process very confrontational:
Either the government describes in open court, within a short time (say, 72 hours) of the person being denied travel, that they have better-than-probable cause to prevent this person from flying -- more than just a matching or similar name -- else the government representative in court (or the first-level manager at the airport who denied travel, if the gov't is a no-show) gets locked up for contempt until the person is removed off the list and all copies.

In essence, the gov't has to submit prima facie evidence why they deny this person the right to travel; if they fail, they go to prison. And AFAIK there is no maximum limit on how long somebody can stay in prison for contempt of court.

Re:Idea for replacing the lengthy appeals process

[qbast]

Does it include right to demand any particular mode of travel? You can always walk. See you in a month or three.

Re:hundreds of thousands of individuals

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe not with the zionic part,
but the rest, agreed, like Dakkau, and other various atrocities through out history.

I think its amazing, how most species try to support one and other to some degree for survival..
Humans, allthey do is look for any and all ways to ex0ploit one another, take advantage, promogulate unrest and deceit.
Why does it seem so stupid that we live in a culture, conditioned to screw over one another.
I beleive in support of your fellow man/woman. I think and feel it has greater returns, and there is more to be accomplished, as a result..
If every one does at a minium 25% of their part, then think of the world peace to had from such an event..
   

I like that - money

[Anonymous Coward]

More than likely, someone named "John Smith" will have buckets of money to fight this on all levels - courts, lobbying the assholes in Congress, the President (Whoever it is at the time..) and the media.

Fuck yeah!

Money rules - Constitution (IV Amendment be damned) drools!

Hope for David Nelson?

[Anonymous Coward]

One of many links ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jun/16/20030616-104109-4241r/?page=all

Troops

[DarksideDaveOR]

All I can think of is the old Star Wars/Cops spoof Troops:

"Suspects are guilty, period. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?"

Re:Troops

[Hobadee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvswNDAAZCU

And Nelson Mandela

[Anonymous Coward]

Although it's kind of a moot point now ...

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2008/07/nelson-mandela.html

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain how the government can impose penalties on a person without providing the evidence against them?

No.

We have an electorate that can be distracted easily and all a politician has to do is something stupid and when someone - like an apposing candidate - disputes that vote, the opposition is now "soft on terror" or "crime" or whatever and it works.

I live in a Republican county - solid - this is JUST an observation. ALL of our political calls by the telemarketers employed by Congressmen sound like this:

blah blah Conservative blah blah blah Conservative blah blah Conservative blah blah blah Conservative
right to life...
blah blah Conservative blah blah blah Conservative
low taxes ...blah blah Conservative blah blah blah Conservative
blah blah Conservative blah blah blah Conservative
blah blah Conservative blah blah blah Conservative
blah blah Conservative blah blah blah Conservative

NEVER EVER a solution.

My Congress people are assholes. I'm in Georgia, USA and all of my Congress critters are subhuman assholes. We gave you Newt, baby! Sorry. We are mouth breathing, knuckle dragging morons.

And we control our government. Because Jesus!

Frank Herbert in one of his novels said something like - politics and religion is formidable.

Yes, sir! That IS the case here in America! We ARE a theocracy in spirit! We are WORSE that IRAN!

Re:Yes.

[noh8rz10]

If you live in Georgia then you should get a gun because it is now legal to shoot people on the street there.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation Needed] hater!

Lower Class White Males

[Princeofcups]

As long as the list doesn't bother any lower class white male voters, then nothing will change. Face it, the majority of voters in this country, the unwashed masses, really do not care what happens to people of other ethnicities. As a matter of fact, it makes them feel superior to see others suffer.

Re:Lower Class White Males

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Your sig is sad.

The only thing worse than Democrats and Republicans is a voter that thinks there's a difference.

Re:Lower Class White Males

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sig is sad.

The only thing worse than Democrats and Republicans is a voter that thinks there's a difference.

Republicans tend to get more Americans killed overseas.

Re:Lower Class White Males

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, check out which party had the Presidency at the start of WWI, WWII, Korea, and VietNam. Also, Obama campaigned that Afganistan was more important at that time than Iraq.

See

[Anonymous Coward]

To all you people who say that no one gets removed once put on. You just have to sue the government, appeal, appeal, pay tens of thousands of dollars, and get a lot of press, but you can to.

Re: Hack it to add American names like "John Smith

[gibbsjoh]

How can you be so arrogant as to assume English is his/her first language. Que barbaro!

On the contrary

[Anonymous Coward]

>it's relatively trivial to imagine cases where they can't arrest someone, despite having every intention of doing so should the opportunity present itself

If they want to arrest someone, it would be easiest to allow that person to travel to America.

Even better

[Quila]

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and most anti-gun groups, want the no-fly list to be a basis for denying gun purchases. They see this as a big loophole, calling it the "Terror Gap."

http://www.mayorsagainstillega...

So flying isn't the only thing that this no-fly list can potentially cause trouble with if its use expands. Next thing you know, being on the list will give free reign for searches without a warrant.

Re:Even better

[dbIII]

being on the list will give free reign for searches without a warrant.

Don't some of the anti-drug laws already do that?

Re:Even better

[Quila]

Don't some of the anti-drug laws already do that?

They've definitely lowered the bar. But if the No Fly List use gets expanded, your rights will be erased simply by virtue of the government putting your name on a list, mistakenly or not.

Fast&Furious

[Firethorn]

Given the response your post created, I wish to point out that I didn't say that the Mexicans wouldn't have gotten the guns a different way, much less that the lives lost to those guns would have been saved.

Note that I emphasized 'lost track of the guns'. If the program had produced results(arrests&convictions) I would be a lot happier with the program, even if a few guns were lost and a federal agent lost his life to one of them(bad stuff happens). What really pisses me off is that not only did the program fail, their actual plan read a bit like the underpant gnome's business plan. IE they didn't have a plan to track the guns when they crossed the border, which was an expected part given that they were dealing with Mexican cartels. Giving them a big fat ??? between 'sell guns to cartels' and 'convictions!'.

Re:Fast&Furious

[bluefoxlucid]

Regardless, there were no negative effects measurable, and logic indicates extreme likelihood that no negative effects exist. It's not like how you don't measure the ghosts a psychic medium is talking to, but you know science has never proven ghosts exist and all reports have been inconclusive or provable bullshit with cheese cloth, thus you can readily and safely assume (unscientifically) that there just aren't any ghosts. It's more like how you haven't opened a walnut, but you assume it has a walnut inside--it could have a bug in it instead, but that pretty much never happens.

We've learned now that this is a poor way to run such a program. We may also be able to mine other information. In any case, we have more intelligence than we went in, and the cost was minimal. Crying that the cost was dead federal agents because of guns the Mexicans wouldn't have otherwise had is ludicrous, like claiming we can't do a raid on a haunted church being used as a Mexican drug lord hide-out because our agents might get eaten by ghosts. Well... they might, I mean if they did that would be bad, but it's actually stupid to believe that's a real thing until it happens in front of you. We can assume the Mexicans will use lethal force against agents because we're roughly 100% certain they have firearms on site--they might not, but you would be stupid to assume they didn't until you walk in and find nobody brought their gun today.

The program was run poorly. Peoples' outcry is that we armed Mexican drug lords--that's not a real problem. The real problem is budgetary: we wasted money to less effect than expected, and it's questionable if the gains were worth the costs. As I understand, the costs were minimal, but still.

Re:Fast&Furious

[Firethorn]

Regardless, there were no negative effects measurable, and logic indicates extreme likelihood that no negative effects exist.

I'd say dead people are measurable negative effects, it's just a bit like pollution deaths - did this particular death result from factory A, B, or C? We can't tell. The Mexican cartels do have multiple ways to obtain firearms, and firearms from F&F have been traced to a number of murders, including the murder of at least one federal officer, and I believe a few state officers. While not 100% indicative of causation, it is a correlation.

Logically speaking, the cartels were obtaining the firearms from the USA because they were the 'best choice' - whether by availability, price, quality, whatever. Maybe if they hadn't been able to get those firearms they would have been stuck with a handgun or AK type rifle and lacked the accuracy/power to kill the agent. I agree, we don't know for sure, but given the body count making it harder for the cartels to obtain the guns probably would have saved some lives.

The real problem is budgetary: we wasted money to less effect than expected, and it's questionable if the gains were worth the costs. As I understand, the costs were minimal, but still.

I suggest rereading my post, where I said things like "What really pisses me off is that not only did the program fail, their actual plan read a bit like the underpant gnome's business plan." Previous incarnations of this program DID coordinate with Mexican police authorities, DID perform much more intense tracking, etc... They actually caught people. This one basically ignored that institutional knowledge, and basic logic should of told them it wasn't going to work.

Occasional failure is to be expected. I just expect the failure to be from something like the Cartel doing something unexpected, equipment failure, or even a low level agent screwing up. The plan for the operation itself should be well thought out, and in this case the problems were evident just from reading the plan, failure would have been expected just from that. Solyndra had a better business plan in comparison.

The real problem is budgetary: we wasted money to less effect than expected, and it's questionable if the gains were worth the costs. As I understand, the costs were minimal, but still.

My position is that our default position should be to not provide firearms to organized crime unless it's part of a *competent* sting operation. The costs were minimal because the effort put in was minimal, insufficient to have a realistic chance of tracing the firearms to higher level personnel in the cartel and effect arrests. Basically, if you're going to do it, do it right.

Re:Fast&Furious

[bluefoxlucid]

I'd say dead people are measurable negative effects, it's just a bit like pollution deaths - did this particular death result from factory A, B, or C? We can't tell.

Not so. For the hundredth time, false equivalence.

We know in this case that this particular death resulted from firearm C, purchased at market rate, and allowed through by federal oversight intentionally letting it slip.

In the case of factory pollution, it's a long-term health consequence from the combined effect. More importantly, adding more factories creates more pollutants. More guns on the market is one thing: black market arms is a hot market, and there's more guns than buyers; adding a few more guns won't do anything because you just have that many more unsold guns. More pollutants in the air is different: you add factory D, you will be inhaling that much more shit.

This is why the whole media circus affair annoys me to no end: people constantly spout stupid shit like "well people were killed with these guns, so this program caused people to die, because otherwise the murderers wouldn't have guns!" It's like people imagine the Mexican Mafia is a street gang with 5 or 6 members, scraping by on their drug money while stealing food and living in a burned-out shack, got a whole $300 of profit this year and bought some Nikes. It's not; it's an international organized crime ring that fights the authorities directly, living in mansions and running trucks wherever the hell they want. When they want guns, they get guns. One of these guys loses a gun, he doesn't have to wait until they can find and buy/steal another one; it's like the US Army, they go to the Mexican Drug Mafia Armory and get another AK, buy more to restock later.

The range of complaints needs to exclude stupid shit that didn't really happen.

Re:Fast&Furious

[Firethorn]

Not so. For the hundredth time, false equivalence.

This is not a counter-argument to my point. There's a reason I said 'a bit', IE the simile isn't exact. I know that, try not to nitpick.

This is why the whole media circus affair annoys me to no end: people constantly spout stupid shit like "well people were killed with these guns, so this program caused people to die, because otherwise the murderers wouldn't have guns!"

Very nice, but at this point you're arguing against a strawman, since my argument was very much less authorative than 'wouldn't have guns'. At most I implied that they wouldn't have as many of the same power and quality.

To repeat: Without the ATF letting the guns through, the Cartels would be stuck using less ideal procurement methods - we know they're not as ideal because they DID buy and use the guns from the dealers. Why would that purchase method be 'ideal' for at least some guns? My thoughts are cost, quality, and availability. Lower cost means they can obtain more guns for the price. They weren't buying cheap guns though, so maybe quality was an ideal factor - while semiautomatic(their illegal sources can get them full auto) the ARs were probably more accurate and possibly reliable than the illegal sources. Availability was probably also a factor - illegal sources are probably less reliable of a source than purchasing. Plus smuggling them back into Mexico isn't likely a big deal, given that they can just operate their smuggling system backwards; I don't think what cash they send back to Mexico takes up as much space, so otherwise the transport systems would just be deadheading back into Mexico.

If the officer had faced an AK or even a handgun instead of an AR he might still be alive. Or, given the butterfly effect, he may never have come into conflict that day. Of course, with the butterfly effect the effect of no F&F might have cost lives, though on the balance that's unlikely.

On the balance I maintain that I believe that F&F as executed did more harm than good - wasted resources in a failed investigation/sting operation, easier arming of cartel forces, etc...

Re:Fast&Furious

[bluefoxlucid]

My argument is that they would have whatever the hell they want because the market is not only there, but strong. You can get AK-47s on the black market, man.

Just 'cause a method is less ideal doesn't mean it's going to be that much less ideal. Wal-Mart is a less ideal source of office paper than ordering online with Staples, but I'm not having Staples ship to my house because they ship FedEx and FedEx refuses to leave a package at my door (UPS will), to the point that support told me I should just go to the distribution center 10 miles away and an e-mail to the CEO (elevated 4 times before I went that high) got a personal letter from an Executive Aid that comes down to, "Well, too bad" (even the CEO emphasizes that it's at the sole discretion of FedEx whether or not to actually deliver a package they've been paid to deliver, even if they've been authorized and instructed to release it at the porch by the recipient in writing).

Paper from Wal-Mart is the same brand. I have to drive and go get it, but hassling with FedEx is less ideal than hassling with the drive to Wal-Mart. UPS dropping paper at my door is most ideal.

Illegal sourced ARs are trafficked or stolen. There's a delivery fee and risk: it costs money to traffic them, but it also costs money to get across the US border and back without getting arrested for trafficking guns. They're the same guns. Dealing with the black market is non-opportune: disputes can turn into firefights--a risk--and your suppliers can be somewhat unreliable. Dealing with retail is smooth and static, very low risk, and can be of higher cost: it can be slower to get the guns you want without raising too many flags, or the whole process may just cost more (black market firearms can be cheaper than retail, or more expensive, depending on many factors--stolen shit is often cheap). While the guns are typically the same stock, they may be discard stock: it's less "more accurate and reliable" and more "chance of getting non-functional garbage", but that rarely happens to big mafioso customers because they send the mob to come kill your entire shop.

An AR-15 is inferior to an AK-47. Butterfly effect is non-existent: events are resistant to noise, not impacted by cascading failure. Computer nerds are all over this imaginary property because it's part of software hashes: change one bit in the input and your hash or your encrypted data or whatever comes out completely different. In real life, small changes don't lead to big changes; they lead to minor adjustments.

Re:Fast&Furious

[Firethorn]

My argument is that they would have whatever the hell they want because the market is not only there, but strong. You can get AK-47s on the black market, man.

No shit. You treat that like some massive revelation when I started mentioning AK's from the second post. Hell, they can get AK-74's on the black market.

Just 'cause a method is less ideal doesn't mean it's going to be that much less ideal.

Agreed, which is why I don't posit it saving anywhere near every life, and just say 'some lives'. Like maybe 2-3. As you mention, there are alternate suppliers, but they're less reliable than dealers the ATF is encouraging to sell to them. They might not be able to obtain the numbers that the purchasers want, there's still the risk of interception/failed deal and a firefight, they might not be able to get the specific rifles they want, etc... On the whole they'd be more effort, and that means more expensive.

In real life, small changes don't lead to big changes; they lead to minor adjustments.

Small changes add up though. It's unlikely, but a lot of cartel people are on hair triggers so it doesn't necessarily take much to tip them into violence(or out of it). Still, there's a reason I said 'on the balance that's unlikely'. IE odds are low. I stuck that part in there mostly because we can't 100% accurately predict the fallout.

Re: Hack it to add American names like "John Smith

[jd2112]

Too late. Ted Kennedy somehow got on the no fly list. I don't think it took 8 hours to get his name removed, although it was probably due to him being one of the highest ranking senators. Good luck if you don't have the clout to call the director of the DHS directly and chew him out though.

There is one taker

[Zynder]

"Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

So many in this country constantly complain and yearn for the ideals of "the Good Old Days" You'll still hear people screaming "Don't Tread On Me" and yet they get awfully quiet when you point out another one of those American-dream ideals. If the Gitmo guys are guilty, then they can live in prison. If they're innocent we SHOULD fix our fuck up. We've ruined their lives. They can stay here if "home" doesn't want them and if they are too jaded by our actions towards them (and I would be personally) then we'll have to figure something out as those cases arise.

Older than that

[dtmos]

[I]t's actually a very strategic piece of property that dates back to the cold war.

It's actually older than that. The US has been there since the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903.

trade one list for a hundred...

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, this person got off the nofly list, but by doing so, and fighting the all-mighty u.s. government to do it, they earned themselves a permanent place on a hundred other government 'watch lists' instead.

Democracy not a Kingdom

[dbIII]

It's not a Kingdom yet, despite what some loonies want, so the President's word is not law on it's own.

Denny Crane

[Anonymous Coward]

Denny Crane

Wow, a way out once 'branded' back to just Slave s

[MonsterMasher]

Say it ain't so!
You mean their political oppression and the long list of no-fly people around the world can now (maybe someday) use public transportation!!
My God! What a gracious dictatorship we live in!
Arm out straight and repeat: "All Hail!"

Re: Hack it to add American names like "John Smith

[Jeremy Erwin]

Kennedy is an Irish name, and there have been more than a few Irish terrorists. Still, the vast bulk of Irishman, including the vast bulk of Kennedys, aren't.

The airlines are to blame

[lamer01]

This is a unconstitutional law that targets their customer base.

No Fly Removal

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an attorney. I work almost exclusively with clients who are experiencing severe government interference with their lives because they are on the no fly list or worse. It takes time and effort, but I can get most people off of one of these lists within a year. I have had to litigate on these types of issues in only a handful of cases, usually indirectly attacking the list, and reached a settlement with the government to remove my client from the list.

At the end of the day, there is only one way to get off of these lists: deconfliction. Anyone on one of these lists must go through deconfliction. When you litigate, the government is forced to put you through deconfliction. When you apply for an affirmative or defensive benefit that these lists block you from, the government is forced to put you through deconfliction.

The government allocates very little resources to deconfliction. Effectively no resources. The only time deconfliction resources are used are when someone has applied for a benefit that requires you to be checked against one of those lists: security clearance, immigration benefits, etc. Transitory benefits - like flying - do not present much opportunity to challenge the list you are on: you either fly or you do not. In theory you can use DHS TRIP to resolve those cases, but it rarely returns a meaningful result. Security clearance can affect your job and has a system by which you can challenge the results. Immigration is the same way, a decision has to be made and you can challenge that decision, as long as you are in the U.S. If you are going through the Department of State, forget it, they treat everything as protected and it is almost impossible to challenge the results.

There are literally hundreds of ways to help someone through deconfliction, but some are more effective than other. A quick way to get someone on a list and mess them up is to agree to an FBI interview . . . or refuse to do an FBI interview. However, a properly managed FBI interview can result in getting someone off the list. But that does not fix it for someone who is outside of the U.S.

What was so unique about this case is not that she was taken off the No Fly list. It was that she was taken off the list, was taken through deconfliction in court, and that was all done while she was outside of the United States. It was a beautiful setup because jurisdiction did exist and DOS was not standing in the way. Rare for a case to allow jurisdiction to exist like that, even rarer for it to be able to get so far.

At the end of the day, yes anyone can get on the list easily and few can get off the list. But if you work at it and know what you are doing, with the right setup you can be taken off.

AC - because people who need my services already know who I am, and the rules of professional conduct can hang someone for making a posting like this if you are not careful. This is not legal advice nor telling you how to do something. Hire an attorney to get off the list if you find yourself there. A good attorney with experience in this area can lead you through it.

Bills of Attainder are prohibitedl

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the Constitution prohibited bills of attainder, yet here we are with no fly lists, executive kill lists and other abuses.